Languages and ideologies at the Lower Yenisei (Siberia): Reconstructing past multilingualism

Abstract

Aims and objectives: This paper reconstructs past multilingualism (1900–1930s) among the nomadic people of the Lower Yenisei in northern Siberia, with particular attention to the language ideologies behind it; it is validated by parallels from small-scale communities worldwide. Approach: An ethnographic approach is taken, which interprets sociolinguistic data in view of emic categorizations. Data and analysis: The reconstruction is based on: (a) 1926 census data; (b) ethnographic reports from the 1920s to 1960s; (c) narratives from the 1940s; (d) retrospective sociolinguistic interviews; and (e) ethnonyms of local languages. (a), (b) provide a background for the interpretation of the linguistic data from (c)–(e). Findings: The connection of local social categories/groups to languages was unstable both synchronically and diachronically. Linguistic repertoires described the authenticity of the speech communities better than the command of individual languages. The linguistic indexing of identity was relational and depended on social networks more than on ancestry/kinship. These ideologies together with constant migrations shaped the sociolinguistic profile of the area and facilitated language shifts. Originality: Besides providing a detailed sociolinguistic description for an underresearched part of the world, this paper uses a novel methodology for reconstructing multilingualism of the past. Implications: The described mechanisms of language shift within communities that are multilingual in related languages contribute to theories of language diversification and spread at least in the north, but possibly also in a broader perspective. The methodology can be applied to other cases of past multilingualism.

Forest Enets and Tundra Enets: How different are they and why?

“…However, they had already moved their winter pastures somewhat further north by the 1926 census. 18 Khanina (2021) has shown that even for speakers of more distantly related languages, Tundra Nenets and Nganasan, mutual comprehension with Enets speakers was common when there was regular contact. 19 Cf.…”

“…More recently, certain studies have treated them as separate languages (Janhunen 2009;Salminen 2007;Siegl 2013), while some publications have insisted on the irrelevance of this debate or avoided any direct claims on the taxonomic status of the Enets lects (Khanina & Meyerhoff 2018). On the ethnographic side, the Tundra Enets and the Forest Enets have had different ethnic identities and different self-nominations, while the speakers of other indigenous languages in the area have likewise not treated them as a unity (see Khanina 2021 for more details). It was only outsider observers, linguists and ethnographers who used a joint nomination for the Forest and the Tundra Enets, first "Yenisei Samoyeds", then "Enets".…”

Languages of hunter-gatherers through a historical-typological lens

“…High levels of individual variation and fuzziness of language boundaries are for Burenhult logical linguistic consequences of these social patterns. Personally, I was struck by this unexpected parallel to the recent past of the Northern Samoyedic groups (see Khanina (2021) for a sociolinguistic analysis of the former), with this parallel showcasing how promising cross-linguistic comparison can be in the case of the sociolinguistics of hunter-gatherer communities.…”

Language ideology in an endogamous society: The case of Daghestan

“…Most of these studies are performed in societies where the norm is exogamy—the practice of taking marriage partners from other groups. Language ideologies in exogamous societies are discussed in South America (Chernela, 2013; Epps, 2018; Fleming, 2016; Stenzel & Williams, 2021), Australia (Singer & Harris, 2016), Vanuatu (François, 2012), China (Stanford, 2009; Stanford & Pan, 2013), Siberia (Khanina, 2021), and Africa (Di Carlo, Good, & Ojong, 2019; Lüpke, 2016). Stanford and Pan (2013) suggested to lay “the foundation for a typology of the sociolinguistics of exogamy.”…”